ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Role of EUS combined with a newly modified scoring system to detect pancreatic high-grade precancerous lesions.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating tumor cells as potential prognostic biomarkers for early-stage pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatology: Focus on Inflammatory Diseases and Interventions.Visceral medicine · 2023Review
- EUS-guided fine-needle biopsyEndoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Recent research progress of photoacoustic endoscopy in the digestive system.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds and Objectives: Although pancreatic cancer (PC) has an extremely poor prognosis, the 5-year survival rate of patients with pancreatic high-grade precancerous lesion without invasive carcinoma (PHP) is favorable. PHP diagnosis and identification of patients requiring intervention are needed. We aimed to validate a modified PC detection scoring system regarding its detection ability for PHP and PC in the general population. Subjects and Methods: We modified an existing PC detection scoring system that incorporates low-grade risk (LGR) factors (family history, presence of diabetes mellitus [DM] or worsening DM, heavy drinking, smoking, stomach symptoms, weight loss, and pancreatic enzyme) and high-grade risk (HGR) factors (new-onset DM, familial PC, jaundice, tumor biomarkers, chronic pancreatitis, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, cysts, hereditary PC syndrome, and hereditary pancreatitis). Each factor was scored as one point; LGR score ≥3 points and/or HGR score ≥1 point (positive scores) were indicative of PC. The newly modified scoring system incorporated main pancreatic duct dilation as an HGR factor. The PHP diagnosis rate using this scoring system combined with EUS was prospectively analyzed. Results: Among 544 patients with positive scores, 10 had PHP. The diagnosis rates were 1.8% for PHP and 4.2% for invasive PC. Although the number of LGR and HGR factors tended to increase with PC progression, none of the individual factors were significantly different between patients with PHP and those without lesions. Conclusion: The newly modified scoring system evaluating multiple factors associated with PC could potentially identify patients with higher risk of PHP or PC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.